Cornelius Stevens v Emily McCallum

This matter concerned an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory between Cornelius Stevens (Appellant) and Emily McCallum (Respondent). The dispute arose from a decision made by Magistrate Doogan, with subsequent appeals leading to the present hearing.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the appropriate orders for costs in relation to both the original hearing before Magistrate Doogan and the subsequent appeals. Specifically, the court had to consider whether to award costs to the appellant for the appeals and whether to make any order as to costs for the initial hearing.

The Court reasoned that the purpose of a costs order is to achieve justice between the parties. Applying the principle from *McEwen v Siely* (1973) 21 FLR 131, the court acknowledged the public interest pursued by the prosecution, noting that the costs of a successful prosecution are ordinarily borne by the prosecution and reflected in the penalty imposed on the defendant. In this instance, the Court concluded that justice would be served by making no order as to costs for the hearing before Magistrate Doogan, but ordering that the Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeals.